MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003347237 · doi:10.1111/ctr.13794

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy: Insights on pathogenesis and therapy

2020· review· en· W3003347237 on OpenAlexaff
Felicity Lee, Vidhya Nair, Sharon Chih

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathogenesisCardiac allograft vasculopathyMedicineIntimal hyperplasiaDiseaseCoronary artery diseaseComplicationCardiologyCoronary arteriesImmune systemVascular diseaseInternal medicineHeart transplantationPathologyHeart failureImmunologyArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a unique accelerated form of coronary vascular disease affecting heart transplant recipients. This complication is a significant contributor to medium- to long-term post-transplant morbidity and mortality. There is a high prevalence of CAV with approximately one in three patients developing CAV by 5 years post-transplant. Morphologically, CAV is characterized by concentric coronary intimal hyperplasia in both the epicardial arteries and intramural microvasculature. Although several immune and non-immune factors have been identified, their precise pathogenic mechanisms, interactions, and relative importance in the development of CAV are not well defined. The advent of improved imaging surveillance modalities has resulted in earlier detection during the disease process. However, overall management of CAV remains challenging due to paucity of treatment. This review aims to discuss key concepts on the pathogenesis of CAV and current management strategies, focusing on the use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207